Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 841011" data-attributes="member: 2013">This does not properly address the question.If the articles are "unlabelled," how will I know NOT to read them until... oops, it's too late, I am reading one and see material that is offensive.Even if the articles ARE "labelled," I have children in my household that I, as a parent, feel should not be exposed to such material.  Now what do I do?  Cut the articles out?  Hide the magazines?  Does this not tell my kids I'm setting a double standard by subscribing to such material anyway?Furthermore, what if I happen to want to support d20 gaming but NOT "Vile" d20 Gaming?  Can I demand a partial refund from Paizo to say, "I'm protesting this?"  No.  I have to cancel the subscription in its entirety or I, by subscribing, am offering financial support to material that I have no desire to offer financial support to.I think you are missing the point.  The point is not, "I don't want to read this stuff," so much as "this stuff is inappropriate for my household and there is no simple way to reconcile that view with a continued subscription to Dragon."You're never going to be able to keep from treading on SOMEONE's sensitivities.  However, as I see it, here is the main difference between what you are describing and what is currently classed as "Vile" material (at least by me)."Demons" and "devils" are understood by D&D players to be artificial creations based upon myth.  To the D&D player, they have no "real-world" analogue.  This is the same with casting spells and other "occultish" things in D&D - the players understand that these things are not meant to represent anything "real."  I personally do not believe that I (the player, not the character) can learn to cast Summon Monster IV or Fireball or slug it out with a Balor or meet a Succubus.However, presenting rules for torture, sadomasochism, necrophilia, and so forth is presenting rules for things WITH a "real-world" analogue.  Here is the difference.  These things ARE meant to represent things that are "real."  I personally do believe that I (the player, not the character) can torture, engage in acts of sadomasochism, and commit necrophilia (not that I WOULD but I CAN)."But what about killing things?"  In the BoVD, and in default D&D in general, there exists a concept of "absolute, irredeemable evil."  In this context, killing things that are in point of fact evil is acceptable to me... one cannot reason with or convert "EVIL" one can only destroy it.  It IS a simplistic view, but it is the one adopted to some extent in most fantasy literature.  Why is it okay to kill hordes of orcs in Middle Earth?  Because they are EVIL.  Why is it okay to try to kill Jadis and her minions (I believe that was her name if I remember by Chronicles of Narnia right) in The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe?  Because she is EVIL.  Nothing can change that.  Evil is attempting to eradicate good.  It becomes about survival."What about more morally ambiguous worlds where races aren't necessarily good or evil?"  Usually when you play in those worlds, you tend to parlay, do you not? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />"Yes, but violence is still evil!"  Among the truly good, violence is the negotiating method of last resort... but it *is* a method.  I think I'm a pretty "good" guy overall, but if someone points a gun at my family and tells me they are going to start squeezing the trigger and killing one family member per minute, you'd better believe I'll be trying like heck to incapacitate and/or kill him.  However, I think the point that speaks more to this is the point made earlier - violence in D&D is abstracted - you're not whittling off limbs, you're whittling off hit points.  There's no table that says, "he loses an eye" or otherwise describes things in grisly detail... it's abstracted to the point where it's "sanitized" - there's no blood, there's no entrails spilling out, there's just "you whomp on him for a while and he drops."  Yes, a good storytelling DM will add flavor to a battle, but that's "outside" the system as written.As far as tomb raiding goes, I don't think that's evil.  Humans have this funny concept as far as property goes - we think we still have some right to determine its disposition after we are dead.  Is that necessarily a natural view?  I don't know.  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me - when I'm dead, what use/care will I have for how my stuff is divvied up?  Obviously in life, I'd like to see it benefit my kids, but that's why we draw up wills in life, and not in death.  IMO, provided a will "moves possession" of stuff to another living entity, we should honor it... moving it to a "tomb" to be "buried with me so nobody else can have it" is kind of silly.  Again, I think it's a non-issue here.Finally, where do I draw the line?  For me, it comes down to "does the 'yucky stuff' (as Piffany would put it) happen on-camera or off-camera?"  Half-orcs are presumably usually the products of rape.  Do we have that explicitly stated in the core rulebooks?  No.  Is it implied?  Yes.  But that is "off camera."  Describing a room with slinky lingerie used by a succubus or torture devices used by a mad cleric is okay - because the "yucky stuff" (the sex or the torture) happened off-camera, even if the implication is strong.FWIW, here is an (incomplete) list of yucky stuff, IMO...* Sexual acts of any sort past kissing (including hands to areas normally covered by a bathing suit).  This includes rape, though I think rape is probably among the most abhorrent... more so than necrophilia (which is pretty disgusting) because it violates someone who can remember the violation. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown    :("  data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />  Also includes detailed discussion or depiction of primary sexual organs and possibly mammaries (I do tend to have a slightly European view of breasts, I guess, having lived there for a couple of years - used appropriately and sparingly I do not believe they are all that problematic).* Physical torture (possibly including ritual sacrifice - saying "the evil high priest is preparing to sacrifice a virgin on the altar - what do you do" is okay, describing the knife cutting into her, etc. is not)* Abuse - physical, mental, sexual, or otherwise - of innocents (specifically women and children).* Any bodily fluid other than blood or (in certain cases) spittle.  Even these can be yucky if used to excess* Rewarding "evil acts" with power without also illustrating a secondary cost (everything ALWAYS has a price, right?)I could add to the list, but I think already most of the stuff I find "yucky" and "not suitable for younger audiences."  Interestingly (to me), drug use does NOT make the list - but it is with the caveat that the effects of drug use - including physical and or psychological dependency are ALSO portrayed.  I *would* be willing to have an addict as an NPC in my games... but he would be portrayed with all the negative consequences of such a lifestyle as well.Mostly, I just want to make sure that ALL the consequences of a particular act get equal "screen time," not that the "desirable ones" get a lot of run while the "drawbacks" are glossed over... which I worry happened in the BoVD... you got lots mechanical advantages for doing "evil stuff" with few mechanical drawbacks.  In my world, at least, evil doesn't work that way - part of evil is selfishness and evil won't give you anything for free (though good, motivated by altruism, might).Noticed my post is starting to ramble, so I'll stop now.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification